how can I alert people to the unprofessionalism of the organization that revoked my job offer?

byAlison GreenonSeptember 3, 2013

A reader writes:

For months, I have been planning on joining a nonprofit organization in another country, starting in September. We negotiated terms and I was told I had the position back in June. Since then, I have communicated frequently with the director of the organization, as well as several other staff members, to prepare the documents I need for my visa, etc. The director also asked me to meet with people in several organizations in Washington, D.C., while I was still here in the U.S., and even wrote introductory emails for me to some of them. These meetings were conducted on my time and dollar.

Suddenly my job offer has been retracted. I get the sense that it is not a budgetary issue, but that the director has developed a personal problem with me. During the salary negotiations, we had agreed on two possible packages, one of which was a higher salary, and the other a lower salary plus reimbursement of some expenses. She recently indicated they planned to go with the second option, and I wrote back saying I preferred the first option, if at all possible. After receiving no response for a week, I was told they cannot meet my requirements and therefore they have made the final decision not to bring me on. I immediately requested a phone call to discuss the issue, and have been strung along for nearly two weeks now, as the director has rescheduled the call several times and has finally ceased to respond to my request to talk at all.

I am stunned that my request for one compensation package over the other elicited such a strong response, and I am even more upset by the fact that I cannot seem to make this person talk to me to smooth things over. At this point, I would like to contact the people with whom I met in D.C. (and to whom I had been introduced as a new member of the organization) and inform them that I will not be taking the job after all. Several of the people I met with work at organizations that are currently funding projects at the nonprofit I was about to join. How can I tactfully tell them about my predicament in a manner that will clue them in on the lack of professionalism at the organization they are funding, while also putting myself out there as a job seeker open to any leads they might be able to provide?

You can certainly reach out and let them know that you won’t be working with XYZ organization after all, but I wouldn’t try to clue them in on anything about the organization’s professionalism. There’s too much risk of it reflecting poorly on you — because often when someone badmouths an organization, however subtly, they’re the one who ends up looking bad. And in this case, they barely know you, but it sounds like they do know the organization. So you’re already at a disadvantage in a he-said/she-said.

You’ll come across much better if you take the high road. Let them know that you won’t be working with the organization after all, but that you’d love to work with them in the future. You can even add, “In fact, I’m currently looking for a role doing ___ for a similar organization, and would love to talk with you if you know of anything that might be the right fit.” (Or you could make it more general and suggest a less-specific coffee or something, if that feels appropriate.)

Some people may ask you what happened. Your best bet then is to keep it very simple and keep bitterness out of your response — so something like, “Unfortunately we weren’t able to agree on final terms.” Resist the impulse to go into the details. You might succeed in raising questions in their mind about the organization, but you’re even more likely to end up raising questions about (a) why you’re sharing dirty laundry, and (b) whether there was something on your end that caused the organization to pull the offer. Neither of those help you.

Now, as for what happened itself … I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I’m not sure there was ever a final job negotiation that you should have been counting on. When compensation hasn’t yet been finalized, negotiations are still in process. And you hadn’t finalized things — you had agreed on two possible compensation packages, but ultimately you wanted one and they wanted the other, and things fell through. So I’m not sure this is quite like having a finalized job that then gets pulled — it’s more like having offer negotiations aborted. They shouldn’t have been having you introduce yourself as a new staff member to people outside the organization, but nor should you have agreed to do it — because you hadn’t come to terms yet, and things were still up in the air. I realize it’s not quite that straightforward, because both sides clouded it up by moving forward with other elements before they should have — but ultimately, if you haven’t fully agreed on final terms, nothing is official.

I realize that doesn’t help you now, but it might be useful to keep that in mind as you process what happened here.

Post navigation

{57 comments… read them below }

I dont think Alison was going out on a limb at all. How is it possible for you to AGREE on one of two comp packages without being okay with either? And why would you think you can MAKE anyone talk to you?

Frankly, both of these issues would have turned me off. Not to mention that you seem to take no responsibility for the predicament yourself?

It sounds like there might have been some miscommunication going on where the OP thought that the company was offering her one of two packages at her option; and the company was communicating that they were deciding between one of two packages at their option. Honestly, a lot of that strikes me as on the company; why would you share your internal deliberations with a candidate like that when only one option was acceptable?

It seems to me like OP was trying to negotiate f0r her preferred package, but would have been okay with the one they offered if she knew asking for the other one would cost her the offer. Not the smartest move when a lot seems to be riding on this offer, but I guess she didn’t expect them to just revoke it with no further word.

That was my thought too. It should be perfectly acceptable to express a preference for one option over the other if both options had been previously agreed upon as viable – why would the company offer two choices if only one was acceptable?

And if the wording here is what OP said to the company and really did express it as a preference if possible, then that’s certainly not being unreasonable. If I had done that and then had the offer revoked, I would have been blindsided, too (though I would have immediately responded that the other option would be fine).

That said, my general rule is to assume the company will pay you as little as possible. It’s just basic economics, and it’s usually right – and when it’s not, it’s a happy surprise.

Thanks for the understanding – this is exactly what happened! I did also immediately try to clarify that I was fine with the option they wanted to go with, but they weren’t open to changing their mind on hiring me.

I am wondering if there was ever a job offer at all. Because I’d be leery of anything where I was doing work at my own expense and not seeing anything about at least being reimbursed/paid for whatever time/expenses I spent on that. If they were representing me as working for them during the time I was interviewing and I was spending money I’d at least want that money back. I wonder if they just wanted that work done? It just seems fishy to me.

But on the comp packages I think there’s a difference between – we’re thinking about how we want to pay you, and we’ve a or b, and then you pick one. If they were thinking of a or b really they had no reason to tell the OP that. They should have just decided on comp and told the OP what the pay scale was and let the OP decide or decline. If you’re presenting a choice the implication is that the person gets to CHOOSE and that the offering agency is good with both choices. If there was no choice, then they should not have put one forward.

To me, it sounded like earlier in the negotiation, there was talk about plan a or plan b, and then the company came back and offered just plan b, though I think it was weird, they just took the job right off the table instead of clarifying with the OP if she would be willing to accept plan b if they were unwilling to offer plan a. That does seems weird.

I can understand why though – a lot of firms don’t treat candidates well. *sigh* Including this one.

And I’d have come back even if they said it was a final decision – after the months of negotiation and being introduced to various people etc, I would be inclined to think either it was a mistake like we’ve see on AAM before – HR says A, hiring manager says B – or that something else had happened. Even just to clarify what happened, and how this would affect me.

Or even to say hey, I thought I had a choice, but I would be more than happy with option A if there IS NO CHOICE. Just because the OP picked option B doesn’t mean option a is horrible or bad pay or they don’t like it, they just had a preference, and it might not even have been a strong one. It’s a really strange reason to just stop contact.

I feel for you, OP–having any job fall through is frustrating, but especially when it involves an international move that you’ve been making for months. It doesn’t sound like your organization handled things well. That said, I think Alison’s advice is excellent. Taking the high road will give you more future job options and maintain your professional image within your field.

You have to think about what you’re really hoping to accomplish by “making the person talk with you to smooth things over”. Do you want them to change their minds? Offer an apology? I can understand why they’d be reluctant to talk to you if your goal is to complain about their treatment of you.

I agree with OP that that is something that maybe should have been done over the phone – only because she had months of contact with the Director and even introduced herself to colleagues as an employee of the org. That is a more meaningful interaction with the company than a normal on-boarding.

It’s possible that their hiring process and handling of this situation have something to do with the culture in their country. HR processes differ from country to country and I am wondering if OP looked into that before/while she was applying to and negotiating with the company.

Good point. Perhaps in the work culture of that country, it’s unacceptable to request compensation-option B when the company has (subtley or not-so-subtley) stated their preference or decision for compensation-option A. It might indicate a larger cultural issue with how OP would be expected to accept decisions and directions at work? Perhaps they backed out because they saw this negotiation attempt as a red flag re: their work cultural norms?

But I feel bad for the OP. An opportunity to work in another country in the non-profit field? That must have been pretty heartbreaking to see the offer disappear.

This. As I read, I thought “the culture of this country does not allow for this type of back and forth conversation.”
OP, I don’t know a lot about cultural differences but I do know that there are some pretty wild things going on out there. This comparatively is tame. I would recommend reading up on a culture before negotiating.

I cannot remember which country it was. But a man was asked to sleep with his boss while they traveled. Little did the man know – in that culture that was an extreme compliment. It indicated a high trust. The man thought he was going to get molested. Of course, nothing happened. Later the man realized if had said NO to the boss it would have been a terrible error on his part.
(Probably one of AMMs posters read this story, too, and can cite the reference. I read this along time ago.)
The point of the article was to read everything possible about the unfamiliar culture before getting involved in it.

I feel for the OP, but I also think she needs to learn something that is helpful in many life situations – letting go. If they promise to call you back, but don’t, follow up once and then move on. There is no need to chase people down. If they care, they will call. If they don’t, you have your answer. MOVE ON. I am not unsympathetic, really. I just see so many people get caught up in the “But they SHOULD call me back…” Well, yes, they should, but they aren’t, so move on.

Agreed that in this particular situation the OP should move on, but I have to see her point; if my organization/agency was funding this non-profit, I would most certainly want to know that they were capable of such behavior. Because it was bad behavior, and such things can indicate a questionable corporate culture. If they can’t conclude a hiring negotiation in a professional and courteous way, I would have serious doubts about how they handled other issues.

Taking the high road is generally the best way to live, but it also prevents a lot of accountability.

I can’t say though that being unable to conclude a hiring negotiation in a professional and courteous way is indicative of being inadequate across the board in other business issues. Many companies stink at communication with potential employees, but excel in other ways.

Also, there is no way to bring this up to the funders without looking like a disgruntled former candidate and since the funders have a relationship with the organization and not with the OP, the organization is going to receive the benefit of the doubt from them, not the OP. It’s just a mess that the OP is better off not wading into because it can’t end well. It’s one thing to tell funders that the company they are funding is mismanaging/stealing the money and be able to prove that. It’s another to complain about the company’s poor hiring processes.

I actually agree – I would want to know if I was the funding agency. I would not suggest the OP go on glassdoor or other anonymous sites, but if you have a personal relationship with funders (which I can’t tell from the letter but maybe?), I think it is fine to be factual and truthful about what happened to you whenever you speak to them next. Again, I would not necessarily bring it up purposefully, but if someone asked you, I think it would be fine to be honest about it.

I strongly disagree. My experience with funders in the non-US nonprofit sector brings up way more bad possibilities than good.

For a start, the actual money being given to the nonprofit may not be the funders own money. A lot of funding relationships for organizations overseas have to go through “middle men” organizations. Basically super large entity #1 gives international funding ngo (#2) $X which then manage granting relationships with local ngos (#3). However, depending on the nature of the arrangement, entity #1 is often getting reports from #2. Given how this flow of information works, #1 may like #3 more than #2 does already – but #2 knows they need to maintain that funding relationship so that they continue getting support from #1. This dynamic (along with others) can make what is/is not important to various pieces in the puzzle a lot more complicated than how things appear on the surface.

The other reason why I wouldn’t say anything (particularly if the OP is from the US) is that it risks making the OP look culturally insensitive and naive. I work for a local ngo outside the US where English is not the native language. Because of this, native English speakers are valued for certain jobs which means that there are lots of candidates and job interviews that occur with people from the US. For better or worse, there is a perceived attitude among American candidates that sometimes rubs local organizations the wrong way. In the region where I work, saying a candidate is “too American” is used as an insult to say culturally inappropriate and unaware of the professional context. If the situation were ever to become a he said/she said – the local organization could easily say that the OP failed to understand the local culture, their working style, or could mention cultural insensitivity.

There are other reasons not to speak up – but the reality is that messing with a nonprofits sources of funding may get them to attack back. Too many bad things could happen by bringing this up.

I think the company were pretty crappy to be honest. To be planning something for months, inviting the OP to visit them, introducing them as part of the team. , and then not even opening the floor for either negotiation, or “Well, actually, our only option is Y package, would you still be okay with that?” is pretty damn horrible.

Especially when it involves an international move, and paying for visas, paperwork etc, all with the intention of completing that move.

I wouldn’t have assumed it was a final offer until it was in writing, but the OP was a) told it was hers in June, and b) in the process of negotiating final salary etc, c) meeting with other clients/people and being introduced by the director and so on. Those are pretty big indicators that all is going well, and to not even come back with “Actually, no, we’re not able to match that”… Yeah. Not cool.

I can also understand her need to get back in contact with the company. It’s a hell of a lot of investment to be turned down at the last moment because of a small detail, and if something had gone wrong – like there have been letters on here when HR have said one thing but the hiring manager have said another – then it could have been ironed out.

OP, I guess the only thing you can do is like Alison suggests, and move on. Remain professional, but if they come back with other jobs or you want to apply with them later on then bear in mind what happened this time. And make sure always to have a back up plan when it comes to a big international move like this.

But blergh. That company is not I’d like to work for if they’re happy to yank an offer just before it’s finalised because a candidate tried to choose between packages when they were ostensibly offered a choice.

I’m sorry that this happened to you, OP. It doesn’t sound like the company handled it very well. I’m confused as to how you could have both “agreed” on two different options? In any case, they shouldn’t have started integrating you into the company if salary was still being negotiated.

I’ll add some:
Why does the candidate want to “report” the behaviour?
Who would they report it to?

I understand being hurt and upset about something like this (although I suspect I would have run into issues earlier when they said “just start working before we start paying you”, so I’m a little confused about that part), but the thing is, if you focus on how the company mistreated you, you’re just prolonging the pain and preventing yourself from moving on, and you make yourself less enjoyable to be around, both personally and professionally. There’s no upside to this.

She wants to report it so that nobody else gets treated like that. She wants them held accountable for their actions. as every person and organization should be. As my mother says, if you don’t want what you’re doing shown on the 6:00 news, don’t do it.

She reports it to the funders, on websites like glassdoor, and in industry specific discussion groups.

I understand that want – but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect to get it. If she goes ahead and publishes posts about this all over the place, she runs the risk of destroying her own credibility (because the odds are they wouldn’t be factual reports of what happened). And focusing on holding them accountable keeps her from moving on.

Sure – I think everyone understands the knee jerk reaction to want revenge when we think we’ve been wronged. But Colette is absolutely right – there is no upside to this. She’ll just look bitter and really hurt her chances of getting hired elsewhere.

Whoa, there is a big difference between “publishing posts about this all over the place” and covering up unprofessional behavior when mutual contacts ask why OP isn’t working there.

For comparison: if someone asks a manager about an unprofessional ex-employee, should the manager simply say “we weren’t able to agree on terms” and not report anything unprofessional about the ex-employee, because they’re just prolonging the pain and preventing them from moving on?

I understand the ramifications of an employee or candidate’s credibility — Allison answered that in her reply.
I don’t see how a company’s credibility ever can be negatively affected. That’s why I’m asking.

I don’t know that she should cover up behaviour – if someone asks “Oh, aren’t you starting at Chocolate Teapots in September?”, of course she can explain that they withdrew the offer during salary negotiations.

But at the same time, I don’t really think that someone providing funds to the organization would be interested in her story, or that it would cause them to re-think directing their funds there. It’s not a sign to me that the way they spend their money is ineffective or inappropriate. It might mean that their hiring practices need improvement, but that’s not necessarily the same thing.

Plus, if their impression of the organization has been favorable up to this point, they’re likely to assume this is just a disgruntled candidate — or that there’s much more to the story but that it’s none of their business.

They’re unlikely to take it face value (rightly so), and they’re also unlikely to go digging for more information (because what’s important to them is whether the organization is getting the results they’re funding them to get), so it’s unlikely to have an impact … other than raising questions about the OP that won’t be helpful to her.

Glassdoor posts anonymous reviews, but I would be careful if I did that not to unload all over them. Something carefully worded and neutral would give readers more to think about than posting, “WERRGGGG THEY WERRE UNPROFESSIONALLL AND MEAAAN ARRGHHWEERRGGARRBLLLLE..”

But one of Allison’s biggest recurring themes (other than “write a strong cover letter!”) is that there effectively is a behavior police: namely, preservation of professional reputation is paramount.

I’m trying to reconcile that theory with the practical advice of “…but a company’s unprofessional behavior can’t be commented on.” Because if so, then why even care about a company’s professional reputation?

Of course it can be commented on. To people who know you (as I wrote below) and thus have reason to see you as credible — not to people who don’t know you or hardly know you, to whom you’re likely to just look disgruntled.

I actually haven’t inferred a message that preservation of professional reputation is paramount; my takeaway is that AAM believes in treating people honorably and professionally and behaving pragmatically in the face of adversity, regardless of what your role in the situation is. If you do that, it will help your professional reputation, sure, but that’s not paramount.

I also don’t think anybody’s said that a company’s unprofessional behavior can’t be commented on. The question is what internet commenting will get the OP and whether it’s what she wants. Even if professional reputation were paramount, it’s important to remember that the speaker’s professional reputation would be affected as well. Think of the post two down from this about the employee who quit after three days. If the dumped employer tweeted that employee’s name daily and kept a shaming paragraph on the entry page to their website, it wouldn’t be just the employee’s reputation that would take a hit.

I actually think a reasonable Glassdoor review is a fine thing to do, and I overstated by saying that it wouldn’t have any desired effect. But it’s also not going to be genuine accountability–it won’t affect most people dealing with the organization, and the place may well experience no difference whatsoever as a result of the review. (The post here may even have more effect than a Glassdoor review, as people who hear about it will be very careful in negotiations for a while without even knowing whether they’re dealing with the relevant organization.)

By reporting this to donors (which may add up to nothing anyways other than making the OP look bad) – this isn’t a case of just alerting potential candidates that this is an unprofessional work environment – this is messing with a nonprofit’s livelihood. It’s really not proportional and could easily just be a case of “poking the bear” where the nonprofit could respond really aggressively towards the OP.

Depending on the size of the nonprofit and the size of the support from those donors, this could be seen as a very aggressive response.

You can certainly talk about what happened with people who know you. But trying to report it to strangers? You have no credibility because they don’t know you, and you’re more likely to end up looking bad.

This is true…it reminds me of something that happened to my husband and me years ago when we were trying to get a roof put on our house, which was supposed to be part of the deal when we bought the place.

It was a big mess and this roofing company ended up jerking us around, and we fired them. In the midst of that one of their former employees contacted us, said that yes, this company was run by a bunch of scumbags, they had done him wrong, and he wanted to help us “get” them. We were immediately suspicious and felt that this guy was a disgruntled former employee trying to use us in some way to retaliate against this company. We had no interest in getting in the middle of whatever he had going on with them.

OP – There’s no reason to tell the funding organizations about the possible unprofessionalism; chances are they know. I worked for a short time for a company that funded events and outreach programs for several city and state nonprofits and I can tell you, we know what’s going on. Since it probably doesn’t directly affect how the NGO provides services, it has no bearing on your particular predicament.

“Move on” might be the harsh reality. But I do think the company treated the OP in an excessively crappy way. I mean, so much investment was made on both parts that this does come across as a communication error… at least at first.

If that offer was non-negotiable, they did a crappy thing by giving her a choice and withdrawing when she says “what about option A.”

And when people ask about negotiations in other parts of this blog, it’s no wonder they don’t want to take the risk of an offer being pulled, as small as it is.

Alison, thanks very much for taking the time to reply. Now that I’ve had a little time to cool off, I definitely agree that taking the high road is the best route and appreciate that solid advice.

In response to your second point and those made in the comments, I somewhat disagree, but I certainly understand those viewpoints and will be very cautious about what constitutes a solid job offer in the future. In this instance they had very clearly stated that the job was mine, and I had committed to it and also turned down other jobs (which they were aware of). The compensation amount was also finalized – the remaining issue at hand revolved around how it would be paid, in order to work around certain visa requirements. So yes, details still had to be worked out, but it seemed like we had finalized the larger points. Ironically, the fact that they requested me to begin introducing myself to people made me feel that the job was secure, and I also felt that my willingness to do so conveyed that I was on board regardless of how the finer compensation details would end up panning out. Essentially it seemed we were both moving forward in good faith, so when the job didn’t work out I definitely felt betrayed.

My main frustration, however, was not that the job was pulled – it was that after months of polite and professional discussion and planning, I was informed in a short email that the decision had been made that I no longer had the position, and I was not even afforded the courtesy of a phone call or any real explanation. I do feel its my fault I lost the job (by asking too many questions about payment details), but I also think that rescinding the job offer was an overreaction on the organization’s part, and that the way they did it was rude and unprofessional.

It’s definitely given me a lot to reflect on and learn from however, both on how to conduct myself and how much to trust others.

Asking questions about payment details is normal, especially when you’re looking at an overseas move. You need to know in detail what to expect in terms of compensation. I don’t think you should fault yourself for that.

Depending on how it was done, it’s possible that it could have reasonably turned them off (particularly with cultural differences in play). For instance, someone who was aggressive about it, didn’t allow adequate time for replies, and/or seemed to forget certain topics had already been covered would alarm me.

Yes, it’s true that if it was done in an aggressive manner of any sort that it may have been a problem. But I’m giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that she was not aggressive with them about it. If she was then that’s a different thing, but I don’t think she should beat herself up about it assuming she was professional in her communications with them.

I sort of had a similar thing happen two years ago. Their ad said that the pay was 10.00 an hour, and they asked me in preliminary emails what I wanted for a yearly salary. I did some quick math based on 10.00 an hour 40 hours a week for a year and told them the amount.

“No, sorry, that’s more than we want to pay, good luck in your job search.”

Either they didn’t do the math, or were trying to do a stealth lowballing.

Then another had said 11.00 an hour. I put down 11.00 for my expected rate of pay “You’re asking for too much money, baaaaaaawwww!” WTH, people? What is the logic, no matter how insane, here?

Also, what is the logic of making two offers but secretly making one a deal breaker? Is it a test or are they trying to look less cheap or is a cultural thing of “In our culture, you’re supposed to take the lesser offer.” or what?

My feeling about cultural differences is that both sides need to be aware of them, especially if they’re hiring someone who hasn’t spent any time in the hiring culture. It does nobody any good if both sides are speaking past each other. Job hunter should know what’s acceptable and what’s not; job hirer needs to know what is acceptable and what is not. I’ve spent a lot of time overseas and the best experiences I had were when both sides of the converation had a modicum of understanding of their counterpart.

I got hired for the pay listed $13.00/hr and even signed an employment contract that explicitly stated the hourly rate. A week or so later they told me they “lost” my signed contract and asked me to sign a duplicate. The “duplicate” stated I was agreeing to be paid $12.00/hr!! I resigned the next day. When I did they told me that they regularly give bonuses and I would make more than $13.00/hr after bonuses were included. Super sketchy.

I’ve had a call center job like that. I went in because it paid 10.00 an hour, so the ad said, and so I was told in the interview. I get in, and it’s actually 8.50, with the remaining 1.50 being made up by getting good quality scores and retention bonuses. I was. Not. Happy.

I stayed for a while, because I desperately needed it. The final straw was them not letting anyone go to lunch one day because “There’s too many calls in the wait queue” and I almost passed out at my desk. I normally don’t have that kind of issue, but I’d eaten breakfast at 6 am and it was well past lunch time. Like 8 hours past.

They wouldn’t let me go because I didn’t have a doctor’s note to say I was diabetic or whatever. I quit two weeks later.